Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPRING CREEK RANCH - PDP - 14-05 - CORRESPONDENCE - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILb. Hull Street will always be a dead-end street on the east end because Swallow Road will be the primary connector according to the Master Street Plan. Therefore, a permanent turn around solution needs to be found. 3. Land Use Code 3.2.2 Access. Circulation and Parking B. General Standard. The parking and circulation system within each development shall accommodate the movement of vehicles, pedestrians and transit, throughout the proposed development and to and from surrounding areas, safely and conveniently, and shall contribute to the attractiveness of the development. a. Portions of Hull Street need to be designated a No Parking zone to allow access for large equipment (hay delivery trucks, flatbeds, etc) turning into and out of the 1925 Hull Street driveway, the entrance to the pasture immediately east, and the right turn to 1839 Hyline Drive and other horse pastures. Cars parked in this zone will prohibit wide radius turning trucks and trailers from accessing these driveways and pastures. These are issues that were neither mentioned nor accounted for, as the developer has not addressed them adequately. We realize that development of this area is destined. We are not anti -development. However, development must not be allowed to create serious problems for the residents and owners of properties already in place. There is potential for infringement and loss of privacy on these properties. We have a real concern with loss of rental income for an unknown period of time as our tenants become disgusted and leave, (yet the property is mortgaged and that must be paid for even if there are no tenants). We fear these properties will become less attractive to future renters if these concerns are not addressed. In order to maintain neighborhood compatibility, these problematic areas that can cause others to suffer significant personal and ecomomic hardship need to be corrected. All adjacent properties need to be equitably considered. We would like to have these issues better resolved before the City Council gives a stamp of approval. Further work is necessary. Thank your for your help in this matter. Sincerely yours, Jeannine and Lloyd Thomas 125 Palmer Dr Fort Collins, CO 80525 Ph 970-225-6875 a. Privacy infringement and trespassing onto private land at 1901 Hull St will be rampant when Hull St is widened and extended as an emergency access. There will be a barrier on the east side which allows emergency vehicles only, but allows pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Pedestrians and pets can wander off the fire lane and trespass onto the adjacent private property to the south unless it is fenced off. There is also then immediate access to the horses in that particular pasture and possible future safety and liability problems. b. Loss of privacy, quality of life, infringement, and right to quiet enjoyment of their home for residents of 1925 Hull St unless barriers, landscaping and buffering are in place between the home and new buildings. Security lighting at the complex can severely impact the inhabitants across the street, the house is small and would be acutely affected by lighting across the street. c. Liability and safety issues concerning the trespassing of neighborhood children and dogs into our horse pasture, directly across from the development, which now has smooth wire fencing. This issue was only addressed for the Heffington property, which will have wire mesh fencing, installed by the developer, to keep out children and pets. This issue is very pertinent for our horse property as well. d. The impact of heavy construction traffic on the the privacy and safety of the residents of 1925 Hull Street, 1901 Hull Street and 1839 Hyline Drive needs to be considered. Keeping the construction traffic flow on the west and north sides of the development would mitigate some of the disruption to the neighbors. 1925 Hull Street is directly across from and fronts on the development. 2. Land Use Code 3.6.2 C Except as provided in (B) above for cul-de-sacs, no dead- end streets shall be permitted except in the cases where such streets are designed eo connect with future streets on abutting land, in which case a temporary turnaround easement at the end of the street with a diameter of at least one hundred feet must be dedicated and constructed. Such turnaround easement shall not be required if no lots in the subdivision are dependent upon such street for access. a. Vehicles, including large delivery trucks, waste management trucks, etc. that proceed too far east on Hull have no turn around spot other than on the private property farm yard of 1901 Hull St. The emergency access road is the only entrance to the driveway for 1901 Hull Street. In addition, some vehicles may drive down to the 1839 Hyline property to the south to turn around in their farm yard, further exacerbating the problem. People occasionally become "lost' now and drive into the 1901 Hull farm yard to turn around. Because of this residential development, which requires the expansion of Hull Street, this will become a much worse problem without a mitigation plan in place. A turn around area needs to be established rp for to entering this area, with appropriate signage in place. July 8, 2005 Fort Collins City Council City Hall West 300 LaPorte Avenue Fort Collins, CO Re: REQUEST FOR APPEAL (Spring Creek Ranch P.D.P. #14-05) Dear City Council: We, the undersigned, are requesting an appeal of the City of Fort Collins Administrative Hearing Officer, Type I Administrative Hearing concerning the SPRING CREEK RANCH P.D.P (P.D.P. # 14-05), dated 27 June 2005 by Claire B. Levy Esq. ,Hearing Officer, 3172 Redstone Road, Boulder, CO 80305. The appellants are: Lloyd G. Thomas, Jr and Jeannine Thomas, both residing at 125 Palmer Drive, Fort Collins, CO 80525, (970) h 225-6875 or w 221-2444. The appellants are owners of the immediate south bordering property (1925 Hull St.), the adjoining property east on the south boundary of Hull Street (1901 Hull St.), and the property accessed by Hull St. at 1839 Hyline, (but not accessible via Hyline). We were unable to appear at the Administrative Hearing and believe some relevant issues regarding this proposed development have not been considered or were omitted from discussion. The plan appears to meet most city requirements and was therefore approved with only slight modifications. There is omission of attention regarding impact and compatibility issues with our three properties. There are additional concerns that needs to be addressed. We believe the Hearing Officer concentrated exclusively on the Heffngton property on the east side of the proposed development. No mention has been made of other adjoining properties and how impact will be mitigated. We therefore feel that the hearing officer failed to properly interpret and apply the relevant provisions of the Land Use Code in regard to our adjoining property. The following points of concern are: Land Use Code 3. S.1 D states that elements of the development plan shall be arranged to maximize the opportunityfor privacy by the residents of the project and minimize infringement on the privacy of adjoining land uses. Additionally, the development plan shall create opportunities for interactions among neighbors without sacrificing privacy or security.